About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
they did it and how they leveraged commercial, off-the-shelf technology to empower it. >> with the largest discretionary funding of any be u.s. department, dod is a ripe target for budget cuts. sequestration looks likely since we're seeing little action from congress. what problems is that going to present for supporting soldiers, sailors and air personnel? >> well, one of the jobs that we all have is jcs, and i'll put back on my chief of army hat for a moment, is the job of taking the resources that are provided and keeping the force in balance. so a service chief has about five levers they can pull to keep the budget in the balance. manpower costs on one side, infrastructure on the other, operations, maintenance, training and modernization. i mean, there's probably another lever there or so that i've forgotten about. but, you know, it does come down to mechanics at some point. how much money will you invest in each of those to have each of those levers stay in balance. and the challenge that you describe in managing the budget and especially as it regards sequestration is that it takes a
of competitive rivalry from search technology. i will say a few words. the facilities doctrine is what judge bork ordered. everyone thinks they have seen a specialist in the flesh for. the idea is that if there is some asset of facility that is hard to duplicate, it is very costly to duplicate, the owner of the facility is excluding competitors from using it and that this has a few other elements as well. well, in case of internet search, and google's business practice specifically, the central facility is on google's page. there is only a limited amount of space that can come up on a page. so it is not possible that every competitor that thinks it is essential to be on google's page can be accommodated. so it's not clear how such a remedy would be feasible, even if you thought that it was necessary. necessary to do this in order to improve competition in way that would benefit consumers. in any event, the u.s. courts have been very reluctant to buy into the essential facilities and the theory that the supreme court has taken pains to say that it is very unlikely that an antitrust claim against g
to balance that with in the fiscal reality. and the fact is th is that capabilities and technologies on our ships are better than ever before, and they're the best in the world and they will remain that way. >> okay. yes, sir. right here. >> good afternoon. i'm patrick wilson, i'm an iraq veteran. i watched with interest the drawdown in iraq from very, very close, transition to a new dawn and into that area. most recently i've watched the boxes turn red in afghanistan. forgive me, i'm a veteran of infantry battalion, is a 10. we make slides. in our slides, commanders want to know make the boxes dream. what i see in afghanistan, those recent report is, everything the army has said about the quote unquote progress of research in afghanistan, all the boxes are read. my question is, if you're looking back to the iraq conflict, if the surge had gone as bad as it now appears the surge is gone in afghanistan, where would be political fallout be? i'm frustrated not about the political debate at how little discussion there is anywhere in the media about the fact that afghanistan apparently the surge
's polluting not only the atmosphere, but the west coast of the united states. we should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology. we should be creating jobs. john mccain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, i guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. drill, we must. but it will take ten years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to be begun to be drilled. in the meantime, we're all in trouble. >> moderator: senator mccain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions, senator obama has said he supports clean coal technology which i don't believe you've always supported -- biden: i have supported, that's a fact. >> moderator: clear it up for us. starting with you, governor palin. >> moderator: the chant is drill, baby, drill, and that's what we hear all across this country because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. they know even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas
this ship and the technology that's on display at this museum, a test to the central achievement of the united states in the 20th century, our ability to project power across the land, across the high seas, across the skies, and coos outer space. we secured those domains, securing them ensure they were used to advance peace and prosperity, and they were not used to promote war and aggression. it is with that same goal in mind today that we have to address a new domain, that we must secure to have peace and prosperity in the world of tomorrow. cyberspace has fundamentally transformed the global economy. it's transformed our way of life providing 2 billion people across the world with instant access to information, to communication, to economic opportunities. cyberspace is the new frontier, full of possibilities, to advance security and prosperity in the 21st century. with these responsibilities also comes new perils and new dangers. the interpret is open. it's highly accessible, as it should be, but that also presents a new terrain for warfare. it is a battlefield of the future wh
epitomizes can be difficult to think about because it's a relationship among people, technology and work processes. it's not a property or a capability that can be ascribed to people or robots independently, and that's why the term "robotic geologist" is so misleading. the relation of people and robots in practical work is difficult even for the scientists to describe. mer scientists have said they could do in a day what took the rover many months. but they're thinking mostly about those long drives. astronauts would leave the rovers in the dust. but there's no shortcut for the hours required to do a spectral analysis or a pixel by pixel scan of an infrared panorama. nobody's used instruments like these in the field before. so how the rover's automation and human actions are dependent on each other can be difficult to explain. because we don't think about it in practice. in terms of what's called phenomenonnology, the rover is seen through. as we say, like using a cane. in terms of -- the rover is embodied in our activity. it becomes transparent like a hammer, a boik -- a bicycle or even
educators today, ma we grew up with typewriters. they are using wi-fi. they are using technology. many of them say that they never even have an opportunity to read a book through technology. and why? maybe we are providing the support and training that we need for the 21st century. we are trying to do things the way we have always done it. and in education, we are slow to change. with all the facts that i presented before you. [inaudible] >> with all of the changes that you see, we are slow to change in education. we don't want to change. [inaudible] >> okay. in terms of solutions, one of them is partnerships. and as we look at partnerships, most districts actually disguise partnerships as one way receiving, as one way gifting. now think about it. if we're in a recession, and with a large budget cuts, and with the feeling rules, why are we really looking at true partnership? and when i say to partnerships, what would it look like interracial with businesses? childcare, public schools, workforce development, all coming together and providing indigent children and families with full day
to the wonders of modern technology. speaking of modern technology, and people would take a second to turn off their cell phones and the like, that would be most welcome. this meeting is on the record. as we say, anything you say can and will, i'm sure, be used against you. in this day and age pro with some things you have and several be used against you. >> confidential anymore. >> the phrase someone needs no introduction is often used. hackney in this case that actually applies. not simply the head of one of the principal financial restitution is in this country but i believe has emerged as one of the most important and influential spokesman for the worlds of finance and business in the united states. the way it is going to work today is seen narrowing to have this conversation for a few minutes and then and we will open and up to you all for your questions. let me just give one are to conflict of interest on the table. the corporate member. the council on foreign relations, one of around 175 corporate members, and i am a shareholder in the company. unfortunately i am a distinct minority sha
in technological ability to move the funds rate up. >> ted truman. >> thank you. ted truman from peterson institute for international economics. i thank you for your remarks, which i think probably qualify as a little more sophisticated for the presentations at brookings and the last year. my question has to do with a channel, and the criticism that you didn't mention. as an international economist. and that is the impact of this on the rest of the world, and whether, in general, and whether in some sense the challenge you left out was the exchange rate. there is some suspicion i think in the world in general that, in fact, what you talked about was completely irrelevant and it's all about the dollar. exporting unemployment, whatever you want to call it. and then the other part of it is you are also exporting inflation to parts of the world that don't want it. so i would be interested in your response to that kind of criticism of his policy. >> well, i mean first of all i will acknowledge that, you know, your statement in the sense that it is certainly the case that there is an element of transmiss
by people that have mass and technology backgrounds and engineering backgrounds. and the students that come from around the world to our schools and learn those skills can go back and other countries and turn around and compete with our companies because we've educated them but they won't stay here because we won't let them. that's got to be addressed. >> the question is, you all agree, immigration is needed but will it have been? >> i think it will. >> it will. >> now, what it gets, something on the top, something on the bottom, but the bottom line we are getting closer to having to do a reasonable immigration bill. and i think it, whatever it is, will happen when, whenever win is, you know, short-term. >> and it's going to have -- clearly business cares a lot about the issue, but in order to get immigration reform through, we are going to have to take a very hard look and, frankly, there's going to have to be a lot of concessions on the side of -- [inaudible] >> i'm not. i'm saying we need it all. and republicans i think we'll have to back off that cliff. >> everybody has got for a but ha
we can afford technological elegance like that i would strike that sort of thing. i don't know how many people have written the concorde, not many but i voted it a financial disaster and it's been just that. those are the types of things i would work on. quayle: the way we are going to reduce this deficit and it is a challenge is to stick to the gramm-rudman targets. gramm-rudman targets have worked. we have reduced the federal deficit $70 billion. and senator bentsen voted against gramm-rudman, the very tool that has been used to bring the federal deficit down. we are going to need all the tools possible to bring the deficit down. we need the tools of the line-item veto. a line-item veto that 43 governors in this country have but not the president of the yunus -- united states. the president needs to have a veto when congress goes ahead and puts into appropriations bill unnecessary spending. let the president put a line through that and send it back to the congress and that the congress vote on it again. congress has got to help out in reducing this budget deficit as much as the e
coming to the religious standpoint having an advantage over them, having to you know, a technological advantage, military advantage, the potential for leverage in the region. they're not trying to accept that. and i think the reason our policy is prevention is because we understand what the consequences will be if we don't succeed in maintaining and producing. that is the point of the containment. containment does not prevent the saudis for making this decision to go and into that. and our ability to persuade them along the lines of, look, you can count on our insurance, i said before, the obama administration would be the third americans administration that said they cannot have this. so right after they acquire this after three administrations have said they cannot have it we will go and say, never mind that you can except our assurance. well, that's not going to because we have already said to not hold. so the reason it is so important is that containment will fail if it comes to at least that measure. >> quickly because i do want to get to mike on both the title of this report and
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)